SHOCKING TURN IN LUCY LETBY CASE: DOCTOR WHO HELPED CONVICT HER SAYS HE IS NO LONGER CERTAIN

Retired paediatrician Dr John Gibbs has called for a possible retrial after expressing renewed doubts about the evidence surrounding the former nurse’s convictions. His comments have reignited debate over one of Britain’s most closely watched criminal cases.

A significant new development has reignited scrutiny of the Lucy Letby case after a retired doctor whose evidence helped secure her convictions said he was no longer certain she was responsible for the deaths and collapses of babies at a hospital in northwest England.

Dr John Gibbs, a former consultant paediatrician at the Countess of Chester Hospital, has reportedly called for a retrial, saying that reconsidering the case could be the most appropriate course of action for everyone involved.

His comments have attracted widespread attention because he was among the doctors whose concerns about events on the hospital’s neonatal unit contributed to the investigation that ultimately led to Letby’s prosecution.

However, his latest remarks do not overturn her convictions. Letby remains imprisoned, and the legal status of her case has not changed.

A REMARKABLE CHANGE IN HIS PUBLIC POSITION

According to a report published by The Sun on September 21, 2026, Gibbs was asked whether he remained certain that Letby had caused the deaths and harm attributed to her.

His reported answer was: “No.”

He also expressed a limited but significant concern that deliberate harm might not have occurred at all. He said he did not believe another person was necessarily responsible if Letby had not been involved.

Gibbs reportedly described a retrial as potentially “the most appropriate thing for everyone”.

The comments are particularly notable because Gibbs had previously been among the consultants who raised concerns about Letby’s conduct while she worked at the hospital between 2015 and 2016.

His more recent statements suggest he believes the evidence and arguments now being discussed deserve further examination.

They should not, however, be interpreted as proof that Letby was wrongly convicted. Establishing whether the convictions should be reconsidered is a matter for the relevant legal authorities.

WHY THE CASE HAS COME UNDER RENEWED SCRUTINY

Letby, a former neonatal nurse, was convicted across two trials in 2023 and 2024 of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder others at the Countess of Chester Hospital.

She is serving 15 whole-life sentences and has previously had applications for permission to appeal rejected.

In the years since the verdicts, medical professionals, scientists and other commentators have debated aspects of the medical evidence used during the trials.

Those questioning the convictions have raised concerns about how some medical events were interpreted and whether alternative explanations were sufficiently considered.

Other experts have challenged parts of the arguments advanced by Letby’s supporters. In September 2026, The Guardian reported that two scientists had withdrawn from her defence team over concerns about the scientific credibility of certain arguments being put forward, while maintaining their own reservations about aspects of the insulin evidence.

The disagreement illustrates how complex and contested parts of the medical debate have become.

It does not establish that the convictions are unsafe, nor does disagreement among experts automatically mean the original jury reached the wrong conclusion.

THE THIRLWALL INQUIRY EXAMINED THE HOSPITAL’S FAILURES

Gibbs’ comments came shortly after the publication of the final report from the Thirlwall Inquiry, which examined events surrounding the babies’ deaths and collapses and the response of hospital staff and management.

The inquiry identified serious failures in safeguarding, management and communication. It concluded that hospital leaders had missed opportunities to act after concerns were raised about Letby.

Gibbs told the BBC that the report made difficult reading and acknowledged that doctors, including himself, had a collective responsibility for some of the failings.

He said he wished the consultants had escalated their suspicions to the police earlier.

Importantly, the inquiry examined how the hospital responded to concerns and how babies were protected. It was not a criminal appeal and did not overturn Letby’s convictions.

The inquiry’s findings and Gibbs’ more recent comments have nevertheless added to public discussion about what happened at the hospital and whether all aspects of the case have been fully understood.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Letby’s legal team has continued to challenge aspects of the evidence, while the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the independent body responsible for examining potential miscarriages of justice, has been reviewing material relating to her convictions.

The commission can investigate cases in which new information or concerns may justify further legal scrutiny. Any decision to refer a conviction back to an appeal court would be a separate step from a public figure expressing doubts.

Gibbs’ call for a retrial is therefore significant as a contribution to the debate, but it is not itself a legal decision.

The families of the babies involved have also had to endure years of public discussion about deeply distressing events. Any further examination of the case must take their experiences into account while allowing evidence to be assessed through the appropriate legal process.

A CASE THAT REMAINS UNDER INTENSE DEBATE

The latest development raises difficult questions about the relationship between medical evidence, criminal convictions and the responsibility of institutions to protect vulnerable patients.

For some observers, Gibbs’ reported change in certainty will intensify calls for closer examination of the evidence. Others will point to the convictions, the appeals already considered and the need to distinguish genuine scientific disagreement from proof of a miscarriage of justice.

At present, the central legal fact remains unchanged: Lucy Letby’s convictions stand.

Dr John Gibbs’ reported remarks have reopened an important public discussion, but they do not settle the question of guilt or establish that a retrial will take place. The next decisive developments, if any, will depend on the formal review of the evidence and the decisions of the relevant legal authorities.

Sources: BBC News, The Guardian, The Sun and AOL reporting published in September 2026. Gibbs’ reported comments should be understood in context; no retrial has been confirmed by his statements alone.